# IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2023] 6 S.C.R. 601
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-04-26
- **Case number:** I.A. Nos.131377, 147102, 195467, 195468, 205092 of 2022
- **Bench:** B. R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/in-re-t-n-godavarman-thirumulpad-v-union-of-india-and-others-37210
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Environment (Protection)
Rules, 1986 - r. 5 - Eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) - Protection of forest
land - Issuance of directions by this Court, by order dated
03.06.2022 that each protected forests-national park or wildlife
sanctuary, to have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from
the demarcated boundary of such protected forest, wherein the
activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9.2.2011
shall be strictly adhered to; that with respect to the activities that
were already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extended
buffer zone-ESZ and which was not prohibited under the ESZ
Guidelines, such activities to continue with the permission of the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union
Territory; and no new permanent structures permitted to come up
within the ESZ - Modification/clarification of the directions soughtHeld: Direction in paragraph 56.1 of the order dated 03.06.2022
is modified and clarified - Area to be declared as ESZ cannot be
uniform and will be Protected Area specific - In some cases, it may
be 10 kilometres on one side and 500 meters on the other side - As
such, the direction which prescribes a uniform one kilometre ESZ to
be modified - Mining activities within an area of one kilometre of
the boundary of the Protected Areas would be hazardous for the
wildlife, such directions to be issued on Pan-India basis -
Furthermore, the directions contained therein would not be
applicable to the ESZs in respect of which a draft and final
notification has been issued by the MoEF & CC and in respect of
the proposals which have been received - Also the direction
contained therein would not be applicable where the National Parks
and Sanctuaries are located on inter-State borders and/or share
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
common boundaries - Directions contained in paragraph 56.5 are
modified and replaced that MoEF & CC and all State/Union Territory
to strictly follow the provisions in the Guidelines of 9.02.2011 and
so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications; and that
while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project
activities in ESZ and other areas outside the Protected Areas, the
Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments
to strictly follow the provisions contained in the OM dated
17.05.2022 issued by MoEF & CC - Environmental laws.
Disposing of the I.As, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If the direction as issued by this Court in
paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 is continued,
then no permanent structure would be permitted to come up for
whatsoever purpose in the Eco-sensitive zones-ESZs. Hundreds
of villages are situated within the ESZs in the country. If no
permanent construction is to be permitted for any purpose, a
villager who is desirous to reconstruct his house would not be
permitted. Similarly, if there is an extension in their family and
some additional construction is required for accommodating the
enlarged family, the same would also not be permitted. Similarly,
if the Government decides to construct schools, dispensaries,
anganwadis, village stores, water tanks and other basic structures
for improvement of the life of the villagers, the same would also
not be permitted. The effect of the order would be to prevent the
State or the Central Government from constructing roads and
provide other facilities to the villagers. [Para 48][629-C-E]
1.2 If the order dated 3rd June 2022 is not modified, it
would also be impossible for the Forest Departments to conduct
eco-development activities around National Parks and
Sanctuaries. The said activities are required with the dual
objectives of protection of wildlife and provision of benefits for
the local communities. MoEF & CC provides financial assistance
to the States under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme-Integrated
Development of Wildlife Habitats, which includes assistance for
eco-development activities. Th

## Text

_Characters 0–39,949 of 76,071. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39949 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
 [2023] 6 S.C.R. 601
601
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(I.A. Nos. 131377, 147102, 195467, 195468, 205092 of 2022 & Ors)
In
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995)
APRIL 26, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Environment (Protection)
Rules, 1986 - r. 5 - Eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) - Protection of forest
land - Issuance of directions by this Court, by order dated
03.06.2022 that each protected forests-national park or wildlife
sanctuary, to have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from
the demarcated boundary of such protected forest, wherein the
activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9.2.2011
shall be strictly adhered to; that with respect to the activities that
were already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extended
buffer zone-ESZ and which was not prohibited under the ESZ
Guidelines, such activities to continue with the permission of the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union
Territory; and no new permanent structures permitted to come up
within the ESZ - Modification/clarification of the directions soughtHeld: Direction in paragraph 56.1 of the order dated 03.06.2022
is modified and clarified - Area to be declared as ESZ cannot be
uniform and will be Protected Area specific - In some cases, it may
be 10 kilometres on one side and 500 meters on the other side - As
such, the direction which prescribes a uniform one kilometre ESZ to
be modified - Mining activities within an area of one kilometre of
the boundary of the Protected Areas would be hazardous for the
wildlife, such directions to be issued on Pan-India basis -
Furthermore, the directions contained therein would not be
applicable to the ESZs in respect of which a draft and final
notification has been issued by the MoEF & CC and in respect of
the proposals which have been received - Also the direction
contained therein would not be applicable where the National Parks
and Sanctuaries are located on inter-State borders and/or share
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
common boundaries - Directions contained in paragraph 56.5 are
modified and replaced that MoEF & CC and all State/Union Territory
to strictly follow the provisions in the Guidelines of 9.02.2011 and
so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications; and that
while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project
activities in ESZ and other areas outside the Protected Areas, the
Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments
to strictly follow the provisions contained in the OM dated
17.05.2022 issued by MoEF & CC - Environmental laws.
Disposing of the I.As, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If the direction as issued by this Court in
paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 is continued,
then no permanent structure would be permitted to come up for
whatsoever purpose in the Eco-sensitive zones-ESZs. Hundreds
of villages are situated within the ESZs in the country. If no
permanent construction is to be permitted for any purpose, a
villager who is desirous to reconstruct his house would not be
permitted. Similarly, if there is an extension in their family and
some additional construction is required for accommodating the
enlarged family, the same would also not be permitted. Similarly,
if the Government decides to construct schools, dispensaries,
anganwadis, village stores, water tanks and other basic structures
for improvement of the life of the villagers, the same would also
not be permitted. The effect of the order would be to prevent the
State or the Central Government from constructing roads and
provide other facilities to the villagers. [Para 48][629-C-E]
1.2 If the order dated 3rd June 2022 is not modified, it
would also be impossible for the Forest Departments to conduct
eco-development activities around National Parks and
Sanctuaries. The said activities are required with the dual
objectives of protection of wildlife and provision of benefits for
the local communities. MoEF & CC provides financial assistance
to the States under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme-Integrated
Development of Wildlife Habitats, which includes assistance for
eco-development activities. These activities often involve
construction of small structures which are permanent in nature
in areas including ESZs. [Para 49][629-E-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
1.3 There are various regulated and permissible activities.
There are also certain projects of national and strategic
importance such as construction of National Highways, Railways,
Defence related infrastructure etc. The effect of the direction in
56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 is that all such activities
would be permanently prohibited. In this respect, it is to be noted
that MoEF & CC has issued an Office Memorandum dated 17th
May 2022 which required that any activity listed in Schedule of
the EIA Notification 2006, when conducted in a notified ESZs, or
in the case of National Parks and Sanctuaries for which no ESZ
has been finally notified, when conducted within 10 kilometres of
such National Park or Sanctuary, requires the consideration and
recommendation of the NBWL or its Standing Committee in
addition to the Environment Clearance under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. Additionally, activities which are regulated
as per the specific ESZ notification, require approval as per that
notification. As such, there are inbuilt safeguards for preventing
rampant construction and abuse of process which may be
detrimental to the development and maintenance of wildlife
habitats. If the direction as contained in paragraph 56.5 of the
order dated 3rd June 2022 that even for continuation of existing
activities, the permission of the PCCF of each State or Union
Territory would be necessary, remains unmodified, taking into
consideration that in each State or Union Territory there would
be hundreds of villages wherein millions of people would be
residing, the PCCF would be left with no other job except to
consider such applications for permission to continue such
activities. Even a farmer desirous to continue farming activities
would be required to seek such permission. Such a direction is
impossible to be implemented. [Para 50][630-B-G]
1.4 If such a direction is continued, rather than avoiding
man-animal conflict, it would intensify the same. As observed in
the said guilelines, the requirement of declaring ESZs is not to
hamper day to day activities of the citizens but is meant to protect
the precious forests/Protected Areas from any negative impact,
and to refine the environment around the Protected Areas. [Para
51][630-G-H]
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
1.5 The necessity to have ESZs is to provide a buffer zone
around the Protected Areas. The rights of the villagers residing
in the Protected Areas are required to be settled in accordance
with the provisions contained in the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972 and such villagers are rehabilitated outside the Protected
Areas. However, no such settlement of rights is available to the
villagers residing in the ESZs areas. As stated in the said
Guidelines, the purpose of declaring ESZs is not to hamper the
day to day activities of the citizens. If the direction as issued is
continued, it would certainly hamper the day to day activities of
the citizens residing in ESZs. As such, the said direction needs
to be modified. [Para 52][631-A-C]
1.6 Insofar as direction in paragraph 56.1 of the order dated
3 rd June 2022 is concerned, a perusal of various orders would
reveal that this Court has not directed any minimum area from
the demarcated boundary of such Protected Areas. The area to
be declared as ESZ cannot be uniform and would be Protected
Area specific. In some cases, it may be 10 kilometres on one
side and 500 meters on the other side. In certain cases, it may
not be possible to have a uniform minimum area by virtue of interstate boundaries or a sea or a river beyond one side of the
Protected Area. In any case, a detailed procedure is required to
be followed as prescribed under Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules. Once
such a notification is issued after following the procedure
prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986, the
ESZs would have to be as per the said notification. [Para 55][631D-F]
1.7 As required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the 1986
Rules, before any final notification is issued, a draft notification is
required to be published in the Official Gazette and in such other
manner as the Central Government may deem necessary from
time to time. Any person interested in filing any objection to such
a draft notification is entitled to file objection within a period of
60 days from the date of publication of the draft notification in the
Official Gazette. The Central Government can be directed to give
a wide publicity to the draft notification so that all persons
interested have knowledge about issuance of such draft
notification. [Para 56][631-G-H; 632-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
605
1.8 After following the said procedure, the matter is placed
before the Expert Committee consisting of 13 organizations
having expertise in the relative field. As such, before an ESZ
area is specified, various factors are taken into consideration.
There are various factors which would determine the ESZs for a
particular Protected Area. The circumstances may differ from one
Protected Area to another Protected Area. As such, the direction
which prescribes a uniform one kilometre ESZ requires to be
modified. [Para 57][632-B-C]
1.9 On the date of filing of the present application, final
notifications have been issued in respect of 474 Protected Areas
whereas draft notifications have been issued in respect of 102
Protected Areas. 73 proposals are pending. This Court has
already found the said Guidelines to be reasonable and has
accepted the same. The Court has also accepted the view of the
Standing Committee of the NBWL that uniform guidelines may
not be possible in respect of each Sanctuary or National Park for
maintaining ESZs. Though the Court has observed that a
minimum width of one kilometre in ESZ ought to be maintained,
in paragraph 56.6 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 itself, it has
observed that minimum width of the ESZ may be diluted in
overwhelming public interest but for that purpose the State or
Union Territory concerned is required to approach Central
Empowered Committee (CEC) and MoEF & CC. Both these
bodies shall give their respective recommendations before this
Court and on that basis, the Court should pass appropriate order.
[Para 58][632-C-F]
1.10 The ESZs are required to be notified after following
the procedure as prescribed under the 1986 Rules and the said
Guidelines. Such notifications cannot be issued unless a close
scrutiny at various levels including the scrutiny by Expert
Committee consisting of experts from 13 organizations. As such,
the direction as contained in paragraph 56.6 of the order dated
3rd June 2022 also needs to be modified. [Para 59][632-G]
1.11 Insofar as the restriction on mining is concerned, it
has been the consistent view of this Court that the mining activities
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
within an area of one kilometre of the boundary of the Protected
Areas would be hazardous for the wildlife. Though in the case of
Goa Foundation's case the said directions were issued in respect
of State of Goa, such directions need to be issued on Pan-India
basis. [Para 60][632-H; 633-A]
1.12 The direction in paragraph 56.1 of the order dated 3rd
June 2022 is modified and clarified that the directions contained
therein would not be applicable to the ESZs in respect of which a
draft and final notification has been issued by the MoEF & CC
and in respect of the proposals which have been received by the
Ministry. However, the Central Government is directed that wide
publicity should be given to the draft notification which is required
to be published under the provisions of clause (a) of sub-rule (3)
of Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules. The final notification to be published
under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules shall
not be given effect for a period of 30 days from the date of issuance
thereof. It is further directed that any person who is aggrieved
with such a final notification would be entitled to approach this
Court directly by filing an application in the instant proceedings.
[Para 61-63][633-B-D]
1.13 It is clarified that the direction contained in paragraph
56.1 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 would not be applicable
where the National Parks and Sanctuaries are located on interState borders and/or share common boundaries. The direction
contained in paragraph 56.4 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 is
modified and directed that mining within the National Park and
Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the
boundary of such National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall not
be permissible. [Para 64, 65][633-E-F]
1.14 The directions contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order
dated 3rd June 2022 is modified and replaced as under:
(i) The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory
Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said
Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions
contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective
Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated
activities and permissible activities;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
(ii) While granting Environmental and Forest Clearances
for project activities in ESZ and other areas outside the Protected
Areas, the Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory
Governments shall strictly follow the provisions contained in the
Office Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by MoEF &
CC. [Para 66][633-G-H; 634-A-B]
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs U.O.I (2006) 5 SCC
25; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs U.O.I (2010) 13
SCC 740; Goa Foundation v. U.O.I. (2011) 15 SCC
791; Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others
(2014) 6 SCC 590 : [2014] 5 SCR 302 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2022) 10 SCC 544
referred to
Para 1
(2006) 5 SCC 25
referred to
Para 14
(2010) 13 SCC 740
referred to
Para 18
(2011) 15 SCC 791
referred to
Para 19
[2014] 5 SCR 302
referred to
Para 21
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos.131377, 147102,
195467, 195468, 205092 of 2022, I.A. Nos.162283 and 162284 of 2022
In I.A. D. No.125746 of 2022
With
I.A. Nos.118604, 118606, 119400, 119401, 119404, 137132, 137138,
137140 and 137143 of 2022, I.A. Nos.5764, 6804 And 10911 of 2023
In The Matter Of:
Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 Of 1995
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae), K. Parameshwar, (Amicus
Curiae) Ms. Arti Gupta, Ms. Kanti, Advs.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Nikhil Goel, A.A.G., Jaideep Gupta,
V. K. Shukla, K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advs., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms.
Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Suhashini Sen, S. S. Rebello, Shyam Gopal,
Raghav Sharma, Sughosh Subramanyam, Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Ms.
Sabina Shahid, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Rajeev
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Kumar Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Shobhit
Dwivedi, V.K. Biju, Ms. Ria Sachthey, Chetanya Singh, Dr. Ranjeet
Bharti, M.K.S. Menon, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Biju P. Raman, Ravi
Lamod, Arun Kumar Jaiswal, Wills Mathew, V. N. Raghupathy,
Manendra Pal Gupta, Adithya Roy, Deepak Prakash, Raneev Dahiya,
Pawan Kr. Dabas, Nachiketa Vaijpayee, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Ms.
Vishnu Priya, Shyam Nair, Vardaan Kapoor, Ms. Disha Gupta, Gautam
S. Bhardwaj, Ms. Manvi Bhandari, Ashwin Kumar D.S., Ms. Surbhi
Mehta, Advs. for the Petitioner.
K.M. Nataraj, Balbir Singh, A.S.Gs., Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.,
M. C. Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra, Vikrant Yadav, Ms. Vijay Lakshmi,
Neeraj Shekhar, Dr. Sumit Kumar, Keshav Baheti, Ms. Asha Gopalan
Nair, E. M. S. Anam, B V Deepak, Vikas Kumar Singh, Vikram Singh,
Ms. Rajshree Singh, Dr. Sham Chand, T. N. Singh, Somesh Chandra
Jha, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Mrinal Elkar
Mazumdar, Mukesh Kr. Verma, Neeraj Kr. Sharma, Ms. Indira Bhakar,
Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Harender Singh, Ambuj Saraswat, P. S. Sudheer,
Sunny Choudhary, Abhimanyu Singh, Ms. Manicka Priya, Mrs. Kirti
Renu Mishra, Dr. Monika Gusain, Goverdhan Bhardwaj, P. K. Manohar,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Shailesh Madiyal,
Vaibhav Sabharwal, Akshay Kumar, Naveen Kumar, James P. Thomas,
Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Dhaval Mehrotra, B. K. Pal, Ms. Shalini Kaul,
Sarvam Ritam Khare, Gaurav Agrawal, Shubhranshu Padhi, Aravindh
S., Ms. Uma Bhuvaneshwari. C, Abbas. B, M/s. D.S.K. Legal, Mrs.
Pragya Baghel, Mrinal Gopal Elker, Arpit Parkash, Ms. Shubhangi
Agarwal, Milind Kumar, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Naman
Tandon, Piyush Beriwal, Samarvir Singh, Navanjay Mahapatra, Amrish
Kumar, T.S. Sabarish, Kaushik Choudhury, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Ms.
Anzu. K. Varkey, Abhishek Atrey, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Ambika
Atrey, Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Akash Giri, M. R. Shamshad, Ajay Marwah,
Naveen Kumar, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, M/s.
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Abhinav Mukerji, Akshay C. Shrivastava,
Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Ms. Surbhi
Mehta, Ms. Adarsh Nain, Anando Mukherjee, Siddhartha Jha, A. Karthik,
Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Vinod
Sharma, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Nishanth Patil, Chirag
M. Shroff, Nishit Agrawal, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya A. Pande,
Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
I.A. NO. 131377 OF 2022:
1. The present I.A. is filed by the Union of India praying for
modification/clarification of the order passed by this Court dated 3rd June
20221 in I.A. No. 1000 of 2003 in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995.
2. The applicant specifically seeks modification of the directions
contained in paragraphs 56.1 and 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022
(supra). The said paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:
"56.1. Each protected forest, that is, national park or wildlife
sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured
from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which
the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9-22011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife
Sanctuary, it shall be 500 m so far as subsisting activities are
concerned.
..........
56.5. In the event any activity is already being undertaken within
the one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as the case
may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which does not
come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the 9-2-2011
Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission of the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union
Territory and the person responsible for such activities in such a
situation shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six
months. Such permission shall be given once the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests is satisfied that the activities concerned
do not come within the prohibited list and were continuing prior to
passing of this order in a legitimate manner. No new permanent
structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose
within the ESZ."
3. The clarification/modification of paragraph 56.1 of the order
dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) is sought to the extent that the Eco-Sensitive
Zones (for short, "ESZs") which have already been notified (final and
draft) by the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (for
1 (2022) 10 SCC 544
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
short, "MoEF & CC") or the proposals for which have been received in
the Ministry be exempted from the directions therein. The applicant also
sought modification to the extent that paragraph 56.1 of the order dated
3rd June 2022 (supra) may not be made applicable where National Parks
and Wildlife Sanctuaries are located along inter-State boundaries and/or
common boundaries. Modification/clarification of the directions in
paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) in its entirety is
additionally sought.
4. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional
Solicitor General (for short, "ASG") appearing on behalf of the applicant,
Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae as well as Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of various State Governments.
5. It is submitted that the Government of India has already issued
Guidelines on 9th February 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "said
Guidelines") for declaration of ESZs around National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries. The said Guidelines were framed after consulting the
National Board for Wildlife (hereinafter referred to as "NBWL"), and
all the State and Union Territory Governments. The said Guidelines provide
a detailed procedure for submitting a proposal for declaration of the
areas around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as ESZs. It is
further submitted that the said Guidelines itself contain various activities
which have been categorized as prohibited, regulated and permitted.
6. It is further submitted that the direction as contained in paragraph
56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) is likely to cause great
hardship to the citizens residing in the ESZs. It is further submitted that
the said directions provide that if any activity is already being undertaken
within one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), and which does not
come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the said Guidelines,
such activities may continue with the permission of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (for short, "PCCF") of each State or Union
Territory and the person responsible for such activities in such a situation
shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six months.The said
Guidelines further provide that such permission shall be given once the
PCCF is satisfied that the activities concerned do not come within the
prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of this Court's order
dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) in a legitimate manner. It is further submitted
that the direction that no new permanent structure shall be permitted to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
611
come up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZs would also cause
great hardship.
7. It is further submitted that insofar as the direction in paragraph
56.1 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) is concerned, it mandates
that each protected forest, that is, National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary,
must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the
demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities
proscribed and prescribed in the said Guidelines shall be strictly adhered
to. Insofar as Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary is concerned, it is
directed that the ESZ shall be 500 meters so far as subsisting activities
are concerned.
8. The learned ASG, amicus curiae and Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of various States submitted that in respect of various National
Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, already final notifications had been issued,
prescribing the boundaries for the ESZs. In some cases, the draft
notifications are pending and in some other cases, the proposals for
issuance of draft and final notifications are pending with the Government
of India.
9. It is submitted that there cannot be a uniform boundary for all
the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. It is further submitted that
there cannot also be a uniform boundary for a particular National Park
or Wildlife Sanctuary. At times, it may be longer on one side and shorter
on the other side depending on various circumstances.
10. It is submitted that the rights of the citizens who are residing
in the Protected Areas are settled under the provisions of Sections 18 to
25A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
"1972 Act") whereas there is no settlement of rights of citizens residing
in ESZs. The citizens therein continue to reside and are also continuing
with their daily avocation like farming etc. It is submitted that various
developmental activities like construction of schools, dispensaries,
anganwadis, public health centres etc. are required to be undertaken in
such areas. Not only that, but if the direction not to make any construction
is continued, the persons residing therein would not be in a position to
construct or reconstruct houses on their own land. It is submitted that
the procedure prescribed for obtaining the permission of the PCCF is
very tedious. If such a direction is issued, the PCCF would be left with
no other work but to consider the applications for continuation of such
activities.
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
11. It is further submitted that though this Court has observed in
paragraph 54 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) that the said
Guidelines are reasonable, it has nevertheless issued directions which
are in conflict with the said Guidelines.
12. It is further contended that the issue in I.A. No. 1000 of 2003
was restricted to prohibition of mining activities in and around Jamua
Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary and prescribing ESZs for the said Wildlife
Sanctuary only. As such, various State Governments did not have an
opportunity to address this Court.
13. Having considered the rival submissions, we find it appropriate
to refer to various orders passed by this Court on the issue of ESZs/
Buffer Zones.
14. The first of such orders was passed by this Court on 16th
September 20052. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 13 of the said
order, which reads thus:
"13. We have perused the affidavit dated 14-9-2005 filed by Mr
Anurag Bajpai on behalf of MoEF and the statement showing the
grant of temporary working permit in the last two years i.e. from
1-1-2003 to 31-12-2004 in the national parks, sanctuaries and forest
area. This is despite the order passed by this Court restraining the
mining activities in these areas. Learned amicus curiae submits
that the inspection of the government record shows a dismal
picture and he would shortly file an application for taking
appropriate action against the persons concerned. Pending filing
of the said application and further orders, we again reiterate that
without compliance with the environmental laws, in particular the
permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no
temporary working permission or temporary permit or any other
permission by whatever name called shall be granted for mining
activities in the aforesaid areas. We further direct that no mining
activity would continue under any temporary working permit
or permission which may have been granted. It appears from
the chart filed with the affidavit of Mr Anurag Bajpai that no
temporary working permission is in operation as of today. If
it is otherwise, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed within
two weeks giving the particulars of such permission."
[emphasis supplied]
2 (2006) 5 SCC 25
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
15. It can thus clearly be seen that this Court directed that no
mining activity would be permitted to continue under any temporary
working permit or permission which may have been granted.
16. It will further be relevant to refer paragraph 15 of the said
order, which reads thus:
"15. MoEF is directed to place on record within three weeks its
viewpoint on the question of area of buffer zone and other related
matters such as should it be universal or place specific. This should
be done after also obtaining the viewpoint of the National Board
of Wildlife."
17. It can thus be seen from the said paragraph that this Court
directed MoEF to place on record within three weeks its viewpoint on
the question of area of buffer zone and other related matters such as
should it be universal or place specific. The Court further directed that
this should be done after obtaining the viewpoint of the NBWL.
18. The second of such orders is passed on 4th August 20063. The
said order basically pertains to banning the mining activities in the National
Parks, Sanctuaries and forest areas. The Court laid down various preconditions wherein temporary working permits could be granted.
19. The next order is passed on 4th December 20064. In the said
order, the Court expressed its anguish towards the various State
Governments for not responding to the letter issued by MoEF dated 27th
May 2005 requiring them to initiate measures for identification of suitable
areas and submit detailed proposals at the earliest. It will be relevant to
refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order, which read thus:
"3. The order earlier passed on 30-1-2006 [Goa
Foundation v. Union of India, (2011) 15 SCC 793] refers to the
decision which was taken on 21-1-2002 to notify the areas within
10 km of the boundaries of national parks and sanctuaries as ecosensitive areas. The Letter dated 27-5-2005 is a departure from
the decision of 21-1-2002. For the present, in this case, we are
not considering the correctness of this departure. That is being
examined in another case separately. Be that as it may, it is evident
that the States/Union Territories have not given the importance
3 (2010) 13 SCC 740
4 (2011) 15 SCC 791
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
that is required to be given to most of the laws to protect
environment made after Rio Declaration, 1992.
4. The Ministry is directed to give a final opportunity to all States/
Union Territories to respond to its Letter dated 27-5-2005. The
State of Goa also is permitted to give appropriate proposal in
addition to what is said to have already been sent to the Central
Government. The communication sent to the States/Union
Territories shall make it clear that if the proposals are not sent
even now within a period of four weeks of receipt of the
communication from the Ministry, this Court may have to consider
passing orders for implementation of the decision that was taken
on 21-1-2002, namely, notification of the areas within 10 km of
the boundaries of the sanctuaries and national parks as ecosensitive areas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and
environment, and having regard to the precautionary principles. If
the States/Union Territories now fail to respond, they would do so
at their own risk and peril."
20. It can be seen that this Court refers to its earlier order dated
30th January 2006 wherein a reference is made to the decision dated
21st January 2002 to notify the areas within 10 kilometres of the boundaries
of National Parks and Sanctuaries as ESZs. Though the order records
that the letter dated 27th May 2005 is a departure from the decision
taken on 21st January 2002, the Court observes that, in the said case, the
Court was not considering the correctness of the said departure. The
Court therefore directed the Ministry to give a final opportunity to all
States/Union Territories to respond to its Letter dated 27th May 2005.
The said order states that the communication should mention that if the
proposals were not sent within a period of four weeks from the receipt
of the communication from the Ministry, this Court may have to consider
passing orders for implementation of the decision that was taken on 21st
January 2002, i.e., notification of the areas within 10 kilometres of the
boundaries of the sanctuaries and National Parks as ESZs.
21. The next order of this Court is dated 21st April 2014 in the
case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others5. It will be
relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said
order:
5 (2014) 6 SCC 590
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
615
"49. ......The result is that the order passed by this Court saying
that there will be no mining activity within one kilometre safety
zone around national park or wildlife sanctuary has to be enforced
and there can be no mining activities within this area of one
kilometre from the boundaries of national parks and wildlife
sanctuaries in the State of Goa."
22. The Court has clarified that there shall be no mining activity
within one kilometre of the safety zone around National Park or Wildlife
Sanctuary and that this has to be enforced. It is also reiterated that there
can be no mining activities within this area of one kilometre from the
boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in the State of
Goa.
23. The Court thereafter refers to the earlier order dated 4th
December 2006 (supra) in the said case and observed thus:
"50. ........It will be clear from the order dated 4-12-2006 [Goa
Foundation v. Union of India, (2011) 15 SCC 791] of this Court
that this Court has not passed any orders for implementation of
the decision taken on 21-1-2002 to notify areas within 10 km of
the boundaries of national parks or wildlife sanctuaries as ecosensitive areas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and
environment. By the order dated 4-12-2006 [Goa
Foundation v. Union of India, (2011) 15 SCC 791] of this Court,
however, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government
of India, was directed to give a final opportunity to all States/
Union Territories to respond to the proposal and also to refer to
the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife the
cases in which environment clearance has already been granted
in respect of activities within the 10 km zone from the boundaries
of the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. There is, therefore,
no direction, interim or final, of this Court prohibiting mining
activities within 10 km of the boundaries of national parks or wildlife
sanctuaries."
24. It could thus be seen that the Court has specifically observed
that this Court had not passed any orders for implementation of the
decision taken on 21st January 2002 to notify areas within 10 kilometres
of the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries as ESZs
with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment. The Court
therefore clarified that there is no direction, interim or final, prohibiting
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
mining activities within 10 kilometres of the boundaries of National Parks
or Wildlife Sanctuaries.
25. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 87.3 and 88.1 of the
said order, which read thus:
"87.3. Until the order dated 4-8-2006 [T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 740] of this Court
is modified by this Court in IA No. 1000 in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India, there can be no mining activities
within one kilometre from the boundaries of national parks and
sanctuaries in Goa.
88.1. MoEF will issue the notification of eco-sensitive zones around
the national park and wildlife sanctuaries of Goa after following
the procedure discussed in this judgment within a period of six
months from today."
26. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that until the order
dated 4th August 2006 (supra) is modified by this Court in IA No. 1000
of 2003 in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of
India, there can be no mining activities within one kilometre from the
boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries in Goa. The Court further
directed MoEF to issue the notification of ESZs around the National
Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries of Goa after following the procedure
discussed in the said judgment. The same was directed to be done within
a period of six months from the date of the said order.
27. The next relevant order would be dated 11th December 2018.
It will be relevant to refer to the following part of the said order:
"The learned ASG has informed us that there are 104
National Parks and 558 Wildlife Sanctuaries making a total of 662
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in the country.
The proposals for declaring areas around these National
Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as Eco Sensitive Zone have been
received from State Governments / UT Administrations for 641
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. No proposals have been
received in respect of 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
The proposals have been accepted and Notification has been
issued in respect of 289 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries
as on 26.11.2018 and draft Notification has been prepared in
respect of 206 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
617
The declaration with regard to Eco Sensitive Zone is under
process with the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change (MoEF) as well as with the State Governments in respect
of 4 146 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
We expect the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change to actively pursue the preparation of the draft Notification
and to issue a final Notification at the earliest.
The proposals for 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries
in respect of which proposals have not yet been received by the
MOEF are as follows:-
........
It is submitted by the learned Amicus that this issue has
been pending since sometime in December, 2006. 12 years have
gone-by but no effective steps have been taken by the State
Governments in respect of the National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries mentioned above.
Under the circumstances, we direct that an area of 10 Kms
around these 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries be
declared as Eco Sensitive Zone by the MoEF. The declaration be
made by the MoEF at the earliest.
Liberty is granted to the State Governments to move an
application for modification of this order along with proposal only
two weeks after submission of the proposals to the MoEF."
28. It can be seen that this Court has recorded the submissions of
the learned ASG that there were 104 National Parks and 558 Wildlife
Sanctuaries making a total of 662 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries
in the country. It was further recorded that the proposals for declaring
areas around these National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as ESZs
had been received from the State Governments/Union Territories. It
can further be seen that no proposals have been received in respect of
21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. It further recorded that the
proposals had been accepted and notification had been issued in respect
of 289 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as on 26th November
2018 and draft notification had been prepared in respect of 206 National
Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The Court therefore expected the MoEF
& CC to actively pursue the preparation of the draft Notification and to
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
issue a final Notification at the earliest. The Court then recorded 21
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in respect of which proposals
have not yet been received by the MoEF & CC alongside its anguish
that though 12 years had been passed, no effective steps have been
taken by the State Governments in respect of the National Parks and
Wildlife Sanctuaries named in the said order. Therefore, the Court directed
that an area of 10 kilometres around these 21 National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries be declared as ESZs by the MoEF & CC. Liberty was
granted to the State Governments to move an application for modification
of the said order. However, it further directed that the application should
be along with the proposal for declaration of ESZs.
29.